Mahendra Dayal, J. - (1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Sections 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 27.8.2016, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Room No.2, Lucknow in Crl. Revision No. 61/2016, whereby the learned revisional court, while setting aside the orders dated 8.12.2015 and 25.1.2016, has directed the trial court to decide the discharge application of the opposite party no.2 again in the light of orders passed by this Court on 21.11.2014.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are, that the petitioner is working as Scientist and Head of the Department Bioinformatics at NBRI, Lucknow. He lodged an FIR against the opposite party no.2 alleging therein that he, by way of opening a forged Website, hacked the website of opposite party no.2 and deleted the data available on website worth lacs of rupees. This was done by the opposite party no.2 when he illegally made copies of the data. This action of the opposite party no.2 was seriously objected by the Audit Department. He also without the permission of the petitioner, gave wrong information to the Audit Department and on 8.7.2009, the keys of the network belonging to the petitioner, were deposited by him with security. Thereafter he opened the seal and damaged the network causing loss of crores of rupees. The First Information Report lodged by the petitioner was registered by the police of Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow and the police proceeded with the investigation. The opposite party no.2 was also placed under suspension. Thereafter the police after investigation submitted charge sheet against the opposite party no.2 on 6.8.2011. The trial court also took cognizance upon the charge sheet and passed an order, summoning the opposite party no.2. In the meantime, the opposite party no.2 filed Writ Petition No. 8623 (M/B) of 2011for quashing of the First Information Report but the same was dismissed on 2.9.2011. The opposite party no.2 also filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 5072 of 2011, seeking quashment of summoning order as well as the criminal proceedings against him, in which this Court vide order dated 24.11.2011, gave liberty to opposite party no.2 to appear before the court below and seek bail in accordance with law within 30 days. The opposite party no.2 was also given liberty to move discharge application within the aforesaid period through counsel. However, the opposite party no.2 did not move any discharge application for about 3 years and kept on seeking adjournment one after other. The petitioner being aggrieved by the frequent adjournment of opposite party no.2 filed a petition before this Court bearing Misc. Case No. 2181 of 2014 for expeditious disposal of the case, which was disposed of on 21.5.2014 directing the Judicial Magistrate concerned to dispose of Case No. 6849 of 2011 expeditiously without any unnecessary adjournments. The opposite party no.2 filed a Revision Defective No. 188/2014 for quashing of the proceedings on the ground that proceedings against the co-accused were set aside by the court, upon which this Court vide order dated 17.7.2014 rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently the revision was also dismissed. The petitioner, feeling dis-satisfied with the delaying tactics of opposite party no.2, again approached this Court by filing Application No. 2994 of 2014 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. , in which this Court on 25.7.2014 directed the Magistrate concerned to decide the discharge application expeditiously and proceed to frame charge against the accused after disposal of the discharge application. When a certified copy of the aforesaid order dated 25.7.2014 was produced before the court below, the learned Magistrate rejected the discharge application on 25.8.2014 and framed charges against the opposite party no.2 under Sections 420, 465, 471, 182 IPC & Section 43/66 I.T. Act and Section 63 of the Copy Rights Act. The opposite party no.2 challenged the aforesaid order dated 25.8.2014 by way of filing another petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., being Criminal Misc. Case No. 3714/2014, which was decided on 21.11.2014 with direction to the trial court. This Court directed the court concerned to pass fresh order on the discharge application of the opposite party no.2 giving proper reasons in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 28.11.2014, passed by this Court. The opposite party no.2 moved a third discharge application before the trial court which was again rejected on 6.6.2015. The opposite party no.2 preferred Criminal Revision No. 208 of 2015 against the order dated 6.6.2015. The Revisional Court summoned the record of trial court and passed the impugned order for fresh consideration of the discharge application in the light of the order dated 21.11.2014 passed by this Court. The opposite party no.2, then filed a forth discharge application in pursuance of the order of the revisional court. This was also rejected on 8.12.2015. This order was again challenged by filing Criminal Revision No. 61 of 2016. This revision was allowed on 27.8.2016 with fresh direction to decide discharge application again.".
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;